From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Emacs geometry Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:07:31 +0100 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1154081954 3325 80.91.229.2 (28 Jul 2006 10:19:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:19:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 28 12:19:12 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6PQm-0007KB-Re for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6PQm-0002GP-FQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:18:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G6PG2-0005ZI-S7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:07:50 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G6PG1-0005Y5-J8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:07:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6PG1-0005Xq-CW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:07:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [143.166.85.206] (helo=ausc60pc101.us.dell.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA:16) (Exim 4.52) id 1G6PHs-0001WY-RE; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:09:45 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: s=smtpout; d=dell.com; c=nofws; q=dns; b=FBZGRCWnQVhESZKfBOy/12MEGjcOzWwA6k3SnL89bWZgLSLjQI6Q/0WMFpRMmjdYN1yvhG6fgKSKjunbZsQ7QELyfvwRwjvbBrPnSWvRPeD1inHR4QWOlv/FWWwy+xRW; Original-Received: from ausx3bpc101.aus.amer.dell.com ([10.30.101.51]) by ausc60pc101.us.dell.com with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2006 05:07:39 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.07,190,1151902800"; d="scan'208"; a="52458771:sNHT1481830776" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Emacs geometry Thread-Index: AcayK5sE7HWBe2qpS1yzteAJHh3v9AAAJ8dw Original-To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2006 10:07:31.0648 (UTC) FILETIME=[A3B55400:01C6B22D] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:18:37 -0400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:57730 Archived-At: > -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Zaretskii=20 > Sent: 28 July 2006 10:53 > Subject: Re: Emacs geometry >=20 > > From: "Drew Adams" > > Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:49:10 -0700 > > Cc:=20 > >=20 > > Use the SPI_GETWORKAREA switch to SystemParametersInfo > >=20 > > =20 > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=3D/library/en- > us/wceui40 > > /html/cerefSystemParametersInfo.asp >=20 > You will see that I initially suggested precisely that in this > message: >=20 > =20 > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-pretest-bug/2006-06/ms > g00287.html >=20 > but I think the solution found by Ralf is better, as it makes=20 > Emacs behave on Windows like it does on other windowing=20 > systems: let the window manager position the window, unless=20 > told otherwise. That would work fine for me since I use initial-frame-alist to position the Emacs frame. It will probably be OK for most MS Windows users too. It's worth noting though that there is no concept of window management in MS Windows. Windows are not placed on the screen in a systematic way, they are just put in the same place. As an experiment start up several programs in Windows and see where their windows appear relative to each other. Then start up the same programs in a different order. On my machine at least the result is the same positions in both cases. The only exception to this behaviour is command prompt windows, which take into account the position of the last cmd prompt window when placing the next one. I think the behaviour has always been like this. Rob